Politicians: Forget What We Said in 2005

FLASHBACK: Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), leading the then-minority Democratic Party, speaks at a rally in front of the Supreme Court, April 6, 2005, in Washington.

The nuclear option has been an issue that many Democrats and Republicans have alternately embraced or abandoned — depending on whether they are in the majority or not. Taking a look back to 2005, when Republicans threatened to invoke the nuclear option before a deal was reached, some comparisons are downright uncanny.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this year nearly parroted his predecessor’s comments from 2005 when he accused the GOP of turning “advise and consent into deny and obstruct.”

In 2005, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared, “it’s time to move away from … advise and obstruct and get back to advise and consent.”

Today, both lawmakers are singing a distinctly different tune. Here’s a look at how their and other lawmakers’ viewpoints have changed — or not — since 2005.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid

Getty Images

Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.) speaks to members of the media after the Senate Democratic weekly policy luncheon on Tuesday.

2005: “If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it. … The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington.”

2008: After becoming Senate majority leader, Mr. Reid swore that as long as he was leader, he would never turn to the nuclear option, saying it would be a “black chapter in the history of the Senate.” In his book published that year, he said a rules change weakening the filibuster would be the equivalent to opening Pandora’s box. “Simply put, [it] would be the end of the United States Senate,” he wrote.

2013: “The American people believe Congress is broken. The American people believe the Senate is broken…It’s time to change the Senate before this institution becomes obsolete.”

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

2005: “Despite the incredulous protestations of our Senate colleagues, the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as circumstances dictate.” The majority “intends to do what the majority in the Senate has often done – use its constitutional authority … to reform Senate procedure by a simple majority vote.”

2013: “It’s a sad day in the history of the Senate.” He called the move a Democratic “power grab.”

President Barack Obama

2005: “What [Americans] don’t expect is for one party – be it Republican or Democrat – to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. … I sense that talk of the nuclear option is more about power than about fairness. I believe some of my colleagues propose this rules change because they can get away with it rather than because they know it’s good for our democracy.”

2013: “The American people have probably never been more frustrated with Washington. … All too often we’ve seen a single center of a handful of senators chose to abuse arcane procedural tactics to unilaterally block bipartisan compromises.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.)

2005: “The age-old rules of the Senate are being used to paralyze us. … The public is asking – is begging – us to act.”

2013: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option.” Referring to Republican threats, he said, “It’s almost a temper tantrum.”

Vice President (and former Sen.) Joe Biden

Associated Press

Vice President Joe Biden carries a bag full of food as he talks with reporters outside Capriotti’s Sandwich Shop in Washington on Thursday.

2005: “I pray God, when the Democrats take back control, we don’t do the kind of naked power grab that you are doing now.” “This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights.” “Once you change the rules and surrender the Senate’s institutional power, you never get it back.”

2013: In October, when asked about the nuclear option after GOP shot down an appointment to the Federal Housing Finance Agency: “I think it’s worth considering.” On Thursday, he said he supported Mr. Reid’s actions.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D., Iowa)

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Sen. Tom Harkin speaks during a briefing on a bipartisan proposal to expand early childhood education earlier this month.

2005: “But the long-term, destructive consequences of triggering the nuclear option would be profound for our system of government. For more than two centuries, Senate rules and traditions have respected the rights of the minority. That would be destroyed.”

2013: On misuse of filibusters: “This has been escalating for a long period of time and it was time to stop it and that’s what we did this morning. … Now we need to take it a step farther and change the filibuster rules on legislation.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas)

Associated Press

Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) listens during a hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., earlier this month.

2005: “The 51-vote rule is a consistent Senate tradition. By calling for an end to filibusters, the Senate is simply contemplating restoring its traditions by traditional methods you disparage as ‘nuclear.’”

2013: Called it “pure fantasy” that Democrats were taking this step now to anticipate a similar move by the GOP later. “There’s no basis for that,” he said.

Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.)

Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Sen. Carl Levin speaks at the Reagan National Defense Forum at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., earlier this month.

2005: “The enduring strength and beauty of the U.S. Senate is that we not only operate by rules, but that those rules provide protections for the minority. More than 200 years of Senate rulings have affirmed that this body stands against the tyranny of the majority that our Founding Fathers cautioned us about.”

2013: “I don’t favor using the nuclear option, which violates the rules, to change the rules. … I think the complications are so severe for a whole lot of causes.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine)

2005: “I am very concerned about the overuse of the filibuster. … But I am also concerned that a rule change will further charge the partisan atmosphere to the point that we will not be able to conduct business.”

2013: “The minority will rue the day that they broke the rules to change the rules.”

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.